Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters

We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of ophthalmology 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651
Hauptverfasser: Wheeler, Noel C., Morantes, Connie M., Kristensen, Ronald M., Pettit, Thomas H., Lee, David A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 651
container_issue 6
container_start_page 645
container_title American journal of ophthalmology
container_volume 113
creator Wheeler, Noel C.
Morantes, Connie M.
Kristensen, Ronald M.
Pettit, Thomas H.
Lee, David A.
description We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72981407</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002939414747889</els_id><sourcerecordid>72981407</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-61a7b62e700e78c2b10bba8a34a459a285530ddde7ed209251f45a60a29c25c53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLAzEQgIMotVZ_QmEPInpYnWSTTXISKb6goGg9h2x2lkZ2u5pshf57tw_q0dMwM988-AgZU7imQPObdwBgqc40v6T8SnKpVKoPyJAqqVOqND0kwz1yTE5i_OzTvAcHZECFVlqIIRFvWHtb-Np3q2TSYlV553HRxaStktk8IPbVsEBbJ6_WzVcNdhjiKTmqbB3xbBdH5OPhfjZ5Sqcvj8-Tu2nqMgldmlMri5yhBECpHCsoFIVVNuOWC22ZEiKDsixRYslAM0ErLmwOlmnHhBPZiFxs936F9nuJsTONjw7r2i6wXUYjmVaUg-xBsQVdaGMMWJmv4BsbVoaCWesyG11m7cJQbja6-mxExrsDy6LB8m9q66fvn-_6NjpbV8EunI97TPAcNKyx2y2GvYwfj8HEtUWHpQ_oOlO2_p9HfgFeWoVz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72981407</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Wheeler, Noel C. ; Morantes, Connie M. ; Kristensen, Ronald M. ; Pettit, Thomas H. ; Lee, David A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Noel C. ; Morantes, Connie M. ; Kristensen, Ronald M. ; Pettit, Thomas H. ; Lee, David A.</creatorcontrib><description>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9394</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1891</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1598955</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOPAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anthropometry - instrumentation ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cornea - anatomy &amp; histology ; Cornea - diagnostic imaging ; Female ; Humans ; Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography - instrumentation</subject><ispartof>American journal of ophthalmology, 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651</ispartof><rights>1992 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>1992 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-61a7b62e700e78c2b10bba8a34a459a285530ddde7ed209251f45a60a29c25c53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-61a7b62e700e78c2b10bba8a34a459a285530ddde7ed209251f45a60a29c25c53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=5460905$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1598955$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Noel C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morantes, Connie M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristensen, Ronald M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettit, Thomas H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, David A.</creatorcontrib><title>Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters</title><title>American journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anthropometry - instrumentation</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cornea - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Cornea - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - instrumentation</subject><issn>0002-9394</issn><issn>1879-1891</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLAzEQgIMotVZ_QmEPInpYnWSTTXISKb6goGg9h2x2lkZ2u5pshf57tw_q0dMwM988-AgZU7imQPObdwBgqc40v6T8SnKpVKoPyJAqqVOqND0kwz1yTE5i_OzTvAcHZECFVlqIIRFvWHtb-Np3q2TSYlV553HRxaStktk8IPbVsEBbJ6_WzVcNdhjiKTmqbB3xbBdH5OPhfjZ5Sqcvj8-Tu2nqMgldmlMri5yhBECpHCsoFIVVNuOWC22ZEiKDsixRYslAM0ErLmwOlmnHhBPZiFxs936F9nuJsTONjw7r2i6wXUYjmVaUg-xBsQVdaGMMWJmv4BsbVoaCWesyG11m7cJQbja6-mxExrsDy6LB8m9q66fvn-_6NjpbV8EunI97TPAcNKyx2y2GvYwfj8HEtUWHpQ_oOlO2_p9HfgFeWoVz</recordid><startdate>199206</startdate><enddate>199206</enddate><creator>Wheeler, Noel C.</creator><creator>Morantes, Connie M.</creator><creator>Kristensen, Ronald M.</creator><creator>Pettit, Thomas H.</creator><creator>Lee, David A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199206</creationdate><title>Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters</title><author>Wheeler, Noel C. ; Morantes, Connie M. ; Kristensen, Ronald M. ; Pettit, Thomas H. ; Lee, David A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-61a7b62e700e78c2b10bba8a34a459a285530ddde7ed209251f45a60a29c25c53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anthropometry - instrumentation</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cornea - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Cornea - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - instrumentation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Noel C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morantes, Connie M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristensen, Ronald M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettit, Thomas H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, David A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wheeler, Noel C.</au><au>Morantes, Connie M.</au><au>Kristensen, Ronald M.</au><au>Pettit, Thomas H.</au><au>Lee, David A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters</atitle><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>1992-06</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>113</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>645</spage><epage>651</epage><pages>645-651</pages><issn>0002-9394</issn><eissn>1879-1891</eissn><coden>AJOPAA</coden><abstract>We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of a hand-held portable ultrasound pachymeter, the Pach-Pen (Bio-Rad, Ophthalmic Division, Santa Ana, California); another ultrasound pachymeter, the DGH 1000 (DGH Technology, Inc., Frazer, Pennsylvania); and the Pro-Cem 4 endothelial specular microscope (Alcon-Surgical, Inc., Irvine, California). Each eye of 18 healthy human subjects was examined to determine corneal thickness using the three different instruments. For each instrument, five repeated measurements were obtained at each of five corneal locations (one central, four peripheral), for a total of 25 measurements per eye. The accuracy of the two ultrasound pachymeters was tested by comparing measurements obtained on specially designed test blocks of known thickness. The Pach-Pen was the more accurate of the two ultrasound pachymeters, with measurements within the range of 0.003 to 0.065 mm from the true thickness. The three instruments were most consistent in mean thickness in the center of the cornea. All three instruments showed excellent intraobserver reproducibility, as measured by reliability coefficients over 90%. Overall, the Pach-Pen pachymeter had high reproducibility, and produced more accurate measurements than the DGH 1000 pachymeter.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>1598955</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9394
ispartof American journal of ophthalmology, 1992-06, Vol.113 (6), p.645-651
issn 0002-9394
1879-1891
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72981407
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Adult
Anthropometry - instrumentation
Biological and medical sciences
Cornea - anatomy & histology
Cornea - diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Ultrasonography - instrumentation
title Reliability Coefficients of Three Corneal Pachymeters
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T13%3A03%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reliability%20Coefficients%20of%20Three%20Corneal%20Pachymeters&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Wheeler,%20Noel%20C.&rft.date=1992-06&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=645&rft.epage=651&rft.pages=645-651&rft.issn=0002-9394&rft.eissn=1879-1891&rft.coden=AJOPAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)74788-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72981407%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72981407&rft_id=info:pmid/1598955&rft_els_id=S0002939414747889&rfr_iscdi=true